Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 82 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sunil Dubey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saroj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 10.06.2018 registered as Case Crime No.176 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli.
The allegation in the first information report, which has been lodged by Kharpattu, is that a Satta Ikrarnama alleged to have been executed in his name is a forged document. The first information report was lodged against Parmeshwar, in whose favour the Satta Ikrarnama was executed, and Ram Vilas and Mangal, who are witnesses.
As the petitioners were not named in the first information report but the police sought to apprehend them, they approached this Court by claiming that have no concern with the case.
By order dated 21.01.2019, we required the learned A.G.A. to file a short affidavit disclosing the material that may have been collected against the petitioners during the course of investigation.
Today, a short counter affidavit has been filed annexing therewith the statement of co-accused Parmeshwar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. From the statement of the said co- accused, it appears that one Mithilesh Mishra had impersonated Ram Vilash to be a marginal witness and that the petitioners had initiated the deal along with others.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are not signatories to the agreement and the statement of co-accused made to the police is not admissible in evidence.
As the matter is under investigation and from the statement of Parmeshwar it appears that the petitioners had introduced other persons for the purpose of entering into an agreement, it cannot be said that there is no material at all against the petitioners which may enable us to quash the proceedings against them.
In view of the above, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report dated 10.06.2018 cannot be accepted.
However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that co-accused Sunil Dubey (petitioner no.1) has already been arrested but co-accused Parmeshwar along with another have been granted protection till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It has thus been prayed that the petitioner no.2 be granted similar protection.
Considering the facts of the case as also keeping in mind that the petitioner no.2 is not signatory to the alleged agreement for sale, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation of the case shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but the petitioner no.2 (Patalu Dubey), subject to his cooperation in the investigation, shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, as he has already been arrested, he may apply for bail.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is
disposed off.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 AKShukla/-